Taking too long? Close loading screen.
Connect with us

Entertainment

Paula Reid: 5 Things About CBS Reporter Who Refused To Let Trump Shut Her Down At Press Briefing

Published

on

Paula Reid of CBS News raked Donald Trump over the coals at his press briefing about why he didn’t use time in February to prepare America for the coronavirus outbreak. Here’s five facts about her.

UPDATE, 8/8/20, 5:47pm ET: Donald Trump stormed out of a August 8 press conference in Bedminster, New Jersey, when Paula Reid asked him why he has lied about passing the Veterans Choice Act. The act was passed in 2014 by then-President Barack Obama. Trump has claimed innumerable times that it’s his program. The president abruptly ended the press conference and walked off as “YMCA” played.

CBS news correspondent , 37, stood up to President at his daily press briefing about the coronavirus on Apr. 13. She refused to back down from her line of questioning when he tried to talk over, and called her names when she asked why his administration failed for the virus during the month of February. “The argument is you bought yourself some time. You didn’t use it to prepare hospitals, you didn’t use it to ramp up testing. 21 million people are unemployed. Tens of thousands of Americans are dead…How is this rant supposed to make people feel confident in an unprecedented crisis?” she said before Trump stepped over Paula’s questioning to tell her, “you’re so disgraceful. It’s so disgraceful the way you say that.”

She kept hammering away, asking “But what did you do with the time you bought? The month of February was a gap. The entire month of February.” Trump tried to argue that there were no cases in the United States and she corrected him, that there were cases of the coronavirus in the U.S. during February. “Zero cases, zero deaths on Jan. 17,” Trump claimed. Paula reiterated “February. The entire month of February. Your video has a complete gap. What did your administration do in the month of February with what your travel ban bought you?” Trump then got nasty and called her a “fake.” We’ve got five things to know about Paula.

1. Paula is CBS News’ Chief White House correspondent. Her duties for the network include covering the White House, the Justice Department and legal affairs. She’s been with CBS since 2010.

2. Paula’s exchanges with Trump have made headlines before. She fact checked him in Nov. 2018 on the fake claim that he and President Barack Obama‘s administration had the same policy of separating migrant children from their parents at the border. In answering her question, Trump said “Obama had a separation policy; we all had the same policy,” to which Paula said “You did not…” before he interrupted to say, “I tried to do it differently, but Obama had a separation policy. But people don’t like to talk about that.” Paula corrected him, saying “Sir, it was different. You decided to prosecute everyone at the border.” Trump then cut off her line of questioning.

3. Paula is brave when it comes to her reporting. Not only is she willing to spar with Trump to get true facts out, she was one of the only network news reporters on the ground during the deadly Aug. 2017 white supremacists rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.

4. Paula is highly educated and has a law degree. She graduated from Virginia’s College of William & Mary in 2005 where she double majored in psychology and English. Paula went on to get her law degree (JD) from Villanova University School Law and passed the Bar Exams in both New Jersey and Pennsylvania. As if that wasn’t enough, she received her Masters in Bioethics (MBE) from the University of Pennsylvania in 2016.

5. Paula is married. She lives with her husband Jason Kolsevich in Washington D.C. They married in April 2018 in Ipswich, MA near Paula’s hometown.

Source : Hollywood Life Read More

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Entertainment

Netflix is developing a live action ‘Assassin’s Creed’ show

Published

on

Netflix announced this morning that it’s partnering with Ubisoft to adapt the game publisher’s “Assassin’s Creed” franchise into a live action series.

The franchise jumps around in history, telling the story of a secret society of assassins with “genetic memory” and their centuries-long battle the knights templar. It has sold 155 million games worldwide and was also turned into a nearly incomprehensible 2016 film starring Michael Fassbender and Marion Cotillard, which underperformed at the box office.

The companies say that they’re currently looking for a showrunner. Jason Altman and Danielle Kreinik of Ubisoft’s film and television division will serve as executive producers. (In addition to working on adaptations of Ubisoft’s intellectual property, the publisher is also involved in the Apple TV+ industry comedy “Mythic Quest.”)

“We’re excited to partner with Ubisoft and bring to life the rich, multilayered storytelling that Assassin’s Creed is beloved for,” said Netflix’s vice president of original series Peter Friedlander in a statement. “From its breathtaking historical worlds and massive global appeal as one of the best selling video game franchises of all time, we are committed to carefully crafting epic and thrilling entertainment based on this distinct IP and provide a deeper dive for fans and our members around the world to enjoy.”

It sounds like there could be follow-up shows as well, with the announcement saying that Netflix and Ubisoft will “tap into the iconic video game’s trove of dynamic stories with global mass appeal for adaptations of live action, animated, and anime series.”

Netflix recently placed an eight-episode order for “Resident Evil,” another video game franchise that was previously adapted for the big screen. And it also had a big hit with its adaptation of “The Witcher,” which is based on a fantasy book series that was popularized via video games.

Source

Continue Reading

Entertainment

Original Content podcast: ‘Lovecraft Country’ is gloriously bonkers

Published

on

As we tried to recap the first season of HBO’s “Lovecraft Country,” one thing became clear: The show is pretty nuts.

The story begins by sending Atticus “Tic” Freeman (Jonathan Majors), his friend Leti Lewis (Jurnee Smolett) and his uncle George (Courtney B. Vance) on a road trip across mid-’50s America in search of Tic’s missing father. You might assume that the search will occupy the entire season, or take even longer than that; instead, the initial storyline is wrapped up quickly.

And while there’s a story running through the whole season, most of the episodes are relatively self-contained, offering their own versions on various horror and science fiction tropes. There’s a haunted house episode, an Indiana Jones episode, a time travel episode and more.

The show isn’t perfect — the writing can be clunky, the special effects cheesy and cheap-looking. But at its best, it does an impressive job of mixing increasingly outlandish plots, creepy monsters (with plentiful gore) and a healthy dose of politics.

After all, “Lovecraft Country” (adapted form a book by Matt Ruff) is named after notoriously racist horror writer H.P. Lovecraft, but it focuses almost entirely on Black characters, making the case that old genres can be reinvigorated with diverse casts and a rethinking of political assumptions.

In addition to reviewing the show, the latest episode of the Original Content podcast also includes a discussion of Netflix earnings, the new season of “The Bachelorette” and the end of Quibi.

You can listen in the player below, subscribe using Apple Podcasts or find us in your podcast player of choice. If you like the show, please let us know by leaving a review on Apple. You can also follow us on Twitter or send us feedback directly. (Or suggest shows and movies for us to review!)

And if you’d like to skip ahead, here’s how the episode breaks down:
0:00 Intro
0:36 Netflix discussion
3:18 “The Bachelorette”
6:30 Quibi
14:35 “Lovecraft Country” review
31:32 “Lovecraft Country” spoiler discussion

Source

Continue Reading

Entertainment

The short, strange life of Quibi

Published

on

“All that is left now is to offer a profound apology for disappointing you and, ultimately, for letting you down,” Jeffrey Katzenberg and Meg Whitman wrote, closing out an open letter posted to Medium. “We cannot thank you enough for being there with us, and for us, every step of the way.”

With that, the founding executives confirmed the rumors and put Quibi to bed, a little more than six months after launching the service.

Starting a business is an impossibly difficult task under nearly any conditions, but even in a world that’s littered with high-profile failures, the streaming service’s swan song was remarkable for both its dramatically brief lifespan and the amount of money the company managed to raise (and spend) during that time.

A month ahead of its commercial launch, Quibi announced that it had raised another $750 million. That second round of funding brought the yet-to-launch streaming service’s funding up to $1.75 billion — roughly the same as the gross domestic product of Belize, give or take $100 million.

“We concluded a very successful second raise which will provide Quibi with a strong cash runway,” CFO Ambereen Toubassy told the press at the time. “This round of $750 million gives us tremendous flexibility and the financial wherewithal to build content and technology that consumers embrace.”

Quibi’s second funding round brought the yet-to-launch streaming service’s funding up to $1.75 billion — roughly the same as the gross domestic product of Belize, give or take $100 million.

From a financial perspective, Quibi had reason to be hopeful. Its fundraising ambitions were matched only by the aggressiveness with which it planned to spend that money. At the beginning of the year, Whitman touted the company’s plans to spend up to $100,000 per minute of programming — $6 million per hour. The executive proudly contrasted the jaw-dropping sum to the estimated $500 to $5,000 an hour spent by YouTube creators.

For Whitman and Katzenberg — best known for their respective reigns at HP and Disney — money was key to success in an already crowded marketplace. $1 billion was a drop in the bucket compared to the $17.3 billion Netflix was expected to spend on original content in 2020, but it was a start.

Following in the footsteps of Apple, who had also recently announced plans to spend $1 billion to launch its own fledgling streaming service, the company was enlisting A-List talent, from Steven Spielberg, Guillermo del Toro and Ridley Scott to Reese Witherspoon, Jennifer Lopez and LeBron James. If your name carried any sort of clout in Hollywood boardrooms, Quibi would happily cut you a check, seemingly regardless of content specifics.

Quibi’s strategy primarily defined itself by itself by its constraints. In hopes of attracting younger millennial and Gen Z, the company’s content would be not just mobile-first, but mobile-only. There would be no smart TV app, no Chromecast or AirPlay compatibility. Pricing, while low compared to the competition, was similarly off-putting. After a 90-day free trial, $4.99 got you an ad-supported subscription. And boy howdy, were there ads. Ads upon ads. Ads all the way down. Paying another $3 a month would make them go away.

Technological constraints and Terms of Service fine print forbade screen shots — a fundamental understanding of how content goes viral in 2020 (though, to be fair, one shared with other competing streaming services). Amusingly, the inability to share content led to videos like this one of director Sam Raimi’s perplexingly earnest “The Golden Arm.”

It features a built-on laugh track from viewers as Emmy winner Rachel Brosnahan lies in a hospital bed after refusing to remove a golden prosthetic. It’s an allegory, surely, but not one intentionally played for laughs. Many of the videos that did ultimately make the rounds on social media were regarded as a curiosity — strange artifacts from a nascent streaming service that made little sense on paper.

Most notable of all, however, were the “quick bites” that gave the service its confusingly pronounced name. Each program would be served in 5-10 minute chunks. The list included films acquired by the service, sliced up into “chapters.” Notably, the service didn’t actually purchase the content outright; instead, rights were set to revert to their creators after seven years. Meanwhile, after two years, content partners were able to “reassemble” the chunks back into a movie for distribution.

Source

Continue Reading

Trending